Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[IanC]

I'm asking those who tell me there are a thousand experiments that prove that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. You know them right?

NASA: refute them Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

go ahead. we all know you can do it.

refute what NASA says are facts

Wow!!! I hadn't realized how deeply NASA had drunk the koolaid. None of those factoids are uncontested science. Even the IPCC doesn't agree that extreme weather events can be associated with AGW.

Wow! You're smatah than NASA?

cool

Did your broker talk you into buying subprime mortgage instruments back in the 2000's or did your BS detector go off?

I was hounded by folks who wanted to help me buy a home with no income requirement, no money down, no questions asked..."Housing never goes down"

I am being hounded now by people that want me to buy expensive insurance against calamities that can't be claimed, instead of using the money to upgrade my structure against the likely mild form of the problem.

AGW may be an inconvenience or a boon, and is unstoppable with our present technology. CAGW is improbable in the extreme, and is a fairy tale to scare the gullible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA: refute them Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

go ahead. we all know you can do it.

refute what NASA says are facts

Wow!!! I hadn't realized how deeply NASA had drunk the koolaid. None of those factoids are uncontested science. Even the IPCC doesn't agree that extreme weather events can be associated with AGW.

Wow! You're smatah than NASA?

cool

Did your broker talk you into buying subprime mortgage instruments back in the 2000's or did your BS detector go off?

I was hounded by folks who wanted to help me buy a home with no income requirement, no money down, no questions asked..."Housing never goes down"

I am being hounded now by people that want me to buy expensive insurance against calamities that can't be claimed, instead of using the money to upgrade my structure against the likely mild form of the problem.

AGW may be an inconvenience or a boon, and is unstoppable with our present technology. CAGW is improbable in the extreme, and is a fairy tale to scare the gullible.

It's an open conspiracy to steal your money.

People trying too sell you things you don't think you need? Capitalism at work in the real world. Isn't it great

 

[CrusaderFrank]

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

Graphs with no temperature axis as proof CO2 raises temperature, its a cosmic comedy routine

I guess that's true if you're too uneducated to know what radiance actually means.

It means the decline hiders are full of crap and think posting a graph gives them instant credibility

 

[Crick]

Data collected over decades by thousands of degreed scientists gives no credibility but the misinterpretation of three words in a stolen email is all the evidence you need.

SO fooking stupid!

 

[jc456]

Data collected over decades by thousands of degreed scientists gives no credibility but the misinterpretation of three words in a stolen email is all the evidence you need.

SO fooking stupid!

Exactly

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

Graphs with no temperature axis as proof CO2 raises temperature, its a cosmic comedy routine

I guess that's true if you're too uneducated to know what radiance actually means.

It means the decline hiders are full of crap and think posting a graph gives them instant credibility

graph? NASA Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

you people fail to dispute facts out out by NASA so you attack NASA scientists are part of the grand conspiracy

see?

 

[jc456]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

Graphs with no temperature axis as proof CO2 raises temperature, its a cosmic comedy routine

I guess that's true if you're too uneducated to know what radiance actually means.

It means the decline hiders are full of crap and think posting a graph gives them instant credibility

graph? NASA Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

you people fail to dispute facts out out by NASA so you attack NASA scientists are part of the grand conspiracy

see?

huh?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Data collected over decades by thousands of degreed scientists gives no credibility but the misinterpretation of three words in a stolen email is all the evidence you need.

SO fooking stupid!

Exactly

exactly

jumping on anything... while avoiding the science...

About Skeptical Science
The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

About Skeptical Science​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

Graphs with no temperature axis as proof CO2 raises temperature, its a cosmic comedy routine

I guess that's true if you're too uneducated to know what radiance actually means.

It means the decline hiders are full of crap and think posting a graph gives them instant credibility

graph? NASA Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

you people fail to dispute facts out out by NASA so you attack NASA scientists are part of the grand conspiracy

see?

huh?

huh?

 

[jc456]

Data collected over decades by thousands of degreed scientists gives no credibility but the misinterpretation of three words in a stolen email is all the evidence you need.

SO fooking stupid!

Exactly

exactly

jumping on anything... while avoiding the science...

About Skeptical Science
The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

About Skeptical Science​

huh?

 

[jc456]

Graphs with no temperature axis as proof CO2 raises temperature, its a cosmic comedy routine

I guess that's true if you're too uneducated to know what radiance actually means.

It means the decline hiders are full of crap and think posting a graph gives them instant credibility

graph? NASA Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

you people fail to dispute facts out out by NASA so you attack NASA scientists are part of the grand conspiracy

see?

huh?

huh?

exactly!!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I guess that's true if you're too uneducated to know what radiance actually means.

It means the decline hiders are full of crap and think posting a graph gives them instant credibility

graph? NASA Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

you people fail to dispute facts out out by NASA so you attack NASA scientists are part of the grand conspiracy

see?

huh?

huh?

exactly!!!!

exactly and huh

 

[jc456]

It means the decline hiders are full of crap and think posting a graph gives them instant credibility

graph? NASA Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

you people fail to dispute facts out out by NASA so you attack NASA scientists are part of the grand conspiracy

see?

huh?

huh?

exactly!!!!

exactly and huh

you got it!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

graph? NASA Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

you people fail to dispute facts out out by NASA so you attack NASA scientists are part of the grand conspiracy

see?

huh?

huh?

exactly!!!!

exactly and huh

you got it!!

NASA on line 3, they now say you're covered

 

[IanC]

Hahaha. Stevens has done it again! His latest paper supports the 'Iris Effect'. This should be fun to watch how it plays out in the press. And the blogs of course.

 

[lake avenue]

Funny enough, even Republican sponsored scientists agree that global warming is happening, and 3/4 agree that it's human-caused.

"They analysed 1,350 testimonies from 253 relevant congressional hearings from 1969 to 2007. Among expert witnesses who expressed a view, 86 percent say that global warming and climate change is happening and 78 percent say it is caused by human activity. Under Republican-controlled Congresses, a three-quarter supermajority of scientists say that it is real and anthropogenic. Most significant of all, 95 percent of scientists giving testimonies support action to combat it."

 

[Billy_Bob]

Funny enough, even Republican sponsored scientists agree that global warming is happening, and 3/4 agree that it's human-caused.

"They analysed 1,350 testimonies from 253 relevant congressional hearings from 1969 to 2007. Among expert witnesses who expressed a view, 86 percent say that global warming and climate change is happening and 78 percent say it is caused by human activity. Under Republican-controlled Congresses, a three-quarter supermajority of scientists say that it is real and anthropogenic. Most significant of all, 95 percent of scientists giving testimonies support action to combat it."

Politicians who want power and money... And your point would be what exactly? Consensus?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wow!!! I hadn't realized how deeply NASA had drunk the koolaid. None of those factoids are uncontested science. Even the IPCC doesn't agree that extreme weather events can be associated with AGW.

Wow! You're smatah than NASA?

cool

Did your broker talk you into buying subprime mortgage instruments back in the 2000's or did your BS detector go off?

I was hounded by folks who wanted to help me buy a home with no income requirement, no money down, no questions asked..."Housing never goes down"

I am being hounded now by people that want me to buy expensive insurance against calamities that can't be claimed, instead of using the money to upgrade my structure against the likely mild form of the problem.

AGW may be an inconvenience or a boon, and is unstoppable with our present technology. CAGW is improbable in the extreme, and is a fairy tale to scare the gullible.

It's an open conspiracy to steal your money.

People trying too sell you things you don't think you need? Capitalism at work in the real world. Isn't it great

The taxes imposed by Obama and demcorap clones has doubled my energy bills...

 

[lake avenue]

Funny enough, even Republican sponsored scientists agree that global warming is happening, and 3/4 agree that it's human-caused.

"They analysed 1,350 testimonies from 253 relevant congressional hearings from 1969 to 2007. Among expert witnesses who expressed a view, 86 percent say that global warming and climate change is happening and 78 percent say it is caused by human activity. Under Republican-controlled Congresses, a three-quarter supermajority of scientists say that it is real and anthropogenic. Most significant of all, 95 percent of scientists giving testimonies support action to combat it."

Politicians who want power and money... And your point would be what exactly? Consensus?

Politicians who are also famously anti-AGW, yet even their scientists agree it's happening.

 

[IanC]

Hahaha. Stevens has done it again! His latest paper supports the 'Iris Effect'. This should be fun to watch how it plays out in the press. And the blogs of course.

Missing iris effect as possible cause of muted hydrological change and high sensitivity in climate models

Thorsten Mauritsen and Bjorn Stevens


Abstract. Equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 falls between 2.0 and 4.6 K in current climate models, and they suggest a weak increase in global mean precipitation. Inferences from the observational record, however, place climate sensitivity near the lower end of this range and indicate that models underestimate some of the changes in the hydrological cycle. These discrepancies raise the possibility that important feedbacks are missing from the models. A controversial hypothesis suggests that the dry and clear regions of the tropical atmosphere expand in a warming climate and thereby allow more infrared radiation to escape to space. This so-called iris effect could constitute a negative feedback that is not included in climate models. We find that inclusion of such an effect in a climate model moves the simulated responses of both temperature and the hydrological cycle to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations closer to observations. Alternative suggestions for shortcomings of models — such as aerosol cooling, volcanic eruptions or insufficient ocean heat uptake — may explain a slow observed transient warming relative to models, but not the observed enhancement of the hydrological cycle. We propose that, if precipitating convective clouds are more likely to cluster into larger clouds as temperatures rise, this process could constitute a plausible physical mechanism for an iris effect.




hahahahaha. Stevens even put 'Iris Effect' in the title!!!!!

It might be a bit harder to walk back into camp this time. twice in a month? I bet there are some pissed off people in the background.